Tag: trump derangement syndrome

Fired ABC Reporter Terry Moran Claims Trump Plans to End Press Freedom and Must Be ‘Stopped’

Former ABC News reporter Terry Moran, who was fired from the network for a social media rant against a White House aide, now is comparing President Donald Trump to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and claims the U.S. will lose its free press if Trump is not “stopped.”

Moran made his latest criticisms on the Substack channel of former MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews, another former TV news star who left his long-running show “Hardball” in disgrace in 2020 following accusations of making inappropriate comments about women.

ABC fired Moran in June for posting a blistering social media rant against Trump and White House aide Stephen Miller. The dismissal ended a 28-year-career at the network.

Moran’s latest diatribe — which critics would say confirms the reporter’s biased mindset when he was purportedly a mainstream reporter at ABC — was sparked by Matthews lamenting the recent CBS/ Paramount settlement with Trump.

“Is this going to keep going?” Matthews asked, wondering if other networks and publications would “grovel” before President Trump.

Keep reading

Flashback: See How The Media Spread Russian Hoax Lies As Obama Intel Agencies Created Them

Using a declassified document released this week, it has never been easier to see how the propaganda press partners with politicians to hoodwink the public and shape the political landscape.

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, released a 2020 Oversight Investigation and Referral report about a 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) titled, “Russia’s Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US Presidential Election.”

It showed that under the direction of former President Barack Obama, then-CIA Director John Brennan and a handful of intelligence agents slapped together an ICA in two weeks, soon after Hillary Clinton lost the election. The ICA was used as the foundation of the Russia collusion hoax — the lie that Trump and Russia together cheated to win the 2016 election.

But the ICA was a terrible foundation for such a claim, because it was hastily written and had sketchy sourcing, including the fabricated and now debunked Steele dossier; and a six-word fragment of a sentence that mentioned Trump out of context. The report shows that intelligence agents argued with Brennen, telling him not to use information that was substandard, unclear, of uncertain origin, biased, or implausible.

The Federalist’s Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway and Senior Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland have an exclusive, must-read report with details on the strenuous objections high-level intelligence officers had to including the Steele dossier as a source for the ICA. Brennan included it anyway. Soon Obama and the propaganda press were passing off the suspect ICA report as solid proof of collusion.

With the HPSCI report in hand, rereading the corporate media articles that were used to spread the Russia hoax shows just how corrupt the media lies were. And instead of issuing correction notices, The New York Times and Washington Post are now doubling down on the hoax.

Keep reading

Democratic Party posts Biden-era price hikes in widely-mocked X post attacking Trump

A tweet from the official Democratic Party’s X account was ridiculed on Thursday after inadvertently showing prices skyrocketing under former President Joe Biden.

The post attempted to describe rising grocery prices under “Trump’s America” using a graph dating from October 2019 to 2025. The graph claimed that “U.S. Grocery Prices Reached Record Highs in 2025” with prices “higher today than they were on July 2024” in categories such as dairy, produce and meat.

However, many X users pointed out that the graph, in fact, showed prices skyrocketing in 2021 when Biden was president and only leveling off at the end of 2024 when President Donald Trump was re-elected.

“You’re showing us a graph of stable prices suddenly rising the moment you came into power and then steadily rising higher and higher until Trump was reelected,” political commentator Chad Felix Greene wrote.

Keep reading

DNI Tulsi Gabbard Torches Media for Spreading Obama’s Russia Hoax — Says Press Complicit in “Historic Lie” to Sabotage Trump: ‘They Printed What the Deep State Told Them to Print’

The Deep State house of cards is collapsing — and DNI Tulsi Gabbard just lit the match.

During an interview on OANN with former Rep. Matt Gaetz, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard accused the Obama Administration and its loyal media mouthpieces of orchestrating and perpetuating a “historic lie” to sabotage Donald Trump’s presidency before it even began.

As The Gateway Pundit reported earlier this week, Gabbard’s second explosive document release contains indisputable evidence: Barack Obama not only knew the Russia Collusion narrative was bogus — he ordered it.

The so-called Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), rushed out in January 2017, was a politically motivated hit job — a fabricated intelligence document, pushed by CIA Director John Brennan, and blessed by Obama himself — designed to frame Donald Trump as a Russian asset.

During a surprise appearance at Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s briefing, Gabbard called out the media to their faces:

TULSI: “I’m not asking you to take my word for it. I’m asking you in the media to conduct honest journalism — and for the American people to see for yourselves.”

But instead of owning up to their role in pushing Obama’s fake narrative, the so-called “mainstream” media scrambled to bury the truth.

CNN’s Response? PANIC. The network infamously known for breathlessly reporting the Steele dossier and pushing the Russia hoax cut the feed as Gabbard detailed Obama’s criminal involvement.

Keep reading

The Intelligence Community Needs To Be Dismantled

At the direction of President Barack Obama in late 2016, our intelligence agencies pulled off what can only be described as a coup and a treasonous conspiracy against President-elect Donald Trump — a conspiracy that continued throughout his entire first term in office, hobbling his presidency and thwarting the will of the American electorate.

That’s what the bombshell documents released this week by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reveal: a criminal scheme, at the highest levels of the federal government, to deprive Trump the fruits of his electoral victory and, by extension, the American people of meaningful self-government.

At the center of this scheme was President Obama and his intelligence chiefs, who in December 2016 launched a conspiracy to prevent Trump from taking office or, failing that, to hamstring his presidency. “The evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment. There are multiple pieces of evidence and intelligence that confirm that fact,” Gabbard said Wednesday, adding that her office has forwarded all documents to the Justice Department and FBI “to investigate the criminal implications of this.”

It’s possible that those responsible for this long-running coup will face some kind of criminal prosecution and possibly conviction, but it’s highly unlikely. No one should hold their breath waiting for an Obama mugshot, as well-deserved as that might be given what he and his top officials did.

However, that doesn’t mean that nothing at all can be done. The conspiracy that these documents reveal should lead to a thorough reform of our intelligence agencies — not for the sake of political retribution, but for the survival of our republic. Simply put, our intelligence agencies as currently constituted are incompatible with republican self-government and the rule of law. They now function here in America much as they have functioned abroad for decades: as coup machines, undermining national sovereignty and imposing their will over and against the will of the electorate.

If nothing else comes of this scandal, it should be this: the complete dismantling of the intelligence community and its total reconstitution into agencies that can be held accountable to democratically-elected leaders. Right now, it’s accountable to no one, as the recent revelations demonstrate.

What makes such reform difficult isn’t just the power and insularity of these agencies, but that in this particular case they were weaponized by an outgoing president, Obama, who gave his intel chiefs a directive to push out a narrative, backed by official intelligence assessments, that Moscow stole the election for Trump. If a corrupt president is able to use the intel agencies like this, then reform of the agencies is necessary to prevent it from ever happening again.

The ins and outs of how all this happened, and what exactly Obama and his intelligence chiefs did in November and December of 2016, is admittedly a bit confusing, especially for those who never followed or perhaps have forgotten what happened back then and why we should care now, more than eight years later.

My colleagues here at The Federalist have in recent days done the heavy lifting of laying it all out in clear and unmistakable terms: Mollie Hemingway explained how top intelligence officials were overruled by Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, who insisted on the “key judgment” in a January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that Russia had interfered in the election because Moscow “aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances.” The intelligence officials knew there was no evidence to substantiate that claim, which became a cornerstone of the Russia collusion narrative that Trump conspired with Russia to “steal” the 2016 election.

Shawn Fleetwood wrote about newly declassified records showing that “the phony dossier intel agencies used to spy on Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was included in a critical Obama-era report on Russia’s activities in the 2016 election — despite claims from top Obama officials that it wasn’t.” That report, the above-mentioned ICA, relied on the infamous Steele dossier as evidence that Trump colluded with Moscow. Why? Because that was the only evidence they had to substantiate the explosive claim. The Steele dossier was of course an outlandish piece of opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign, and everything in it was fabricated.

Keep in mind the key part of all this is that after Trump won the 2016 election, but before he took office, Obama, Brennan, DNI James Clapper, and FBI Director James Comey, along with other top intel officials, deliberately manipulated the ICA so they could claim that Moscow had helped Trump steal the election. Russia has for a long time meddled in our elections, seeking to sow chaos and undermine the democratic process. But in 2016, Obama and his intel chiefs decided to manufacture a narrative that this time Russia didn’t just want to sow chaos, it wanted to help Trump win and then intervened to make that happen. That’s the central claim of the Russia collusion hoax, and what we learned this week is that it was all based on totally bogus evidence — evidence that was cobbled together at the behest of Obama himself.

But the Obama team didn’t stop there. As my colleague Sean Davis has explained, “Obama intel officials then prepared separate versions of the ICA — one for Congress, which did not include references to Steele dossier in the main body, a declassified version for public release which also excluded the dossier even though it was unclassified, and one for Obama and other executive branch officials, which included the Steele dossier references in the main body. The newly declassified review of the ICA concluded that this sleight of hand was done to allow top intel officials to avoid any public scrutiny or accountability for their inclusion of false, Clinton-funded opposition research in an ICA.”

Keep reading

Russiagate Explained: The Sins Of The 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment

A key part of the House Permanent Selection Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) review is about then-CIA director John Brennan’s reliance on an obscure fragment to determine in the 2017 ICA that Putin “aspired to help Trump’s chances of victory when possible.”

The fragment, which is in bold below, comes from a raw human source intelligence report, or HUMINT in intelligence-speak.

“Putin had made this decision [to leak DNC emails) after he had come to believe t h a t the Democratic nominee had better odds of winning the U.S. presidential election, and that [candidate Trump], whose victory Putin was counting on, most likely would not be able to pull off a convincing victory.”

You might think that means Putin wanted Trump to win. That’s one interpretation.

But there were five different interpretations among the five people who wrote the ICA.

A senior CIA operations officers remarked: “We don’t know what was meant by that,” and “five people read it five ways,” the HPSCI reports says.

Usually that’s no problem, because as the Intelligence Community Directive standards (ICD 203) make clear, alternative interpretations should be included. Incredibly, the ICA failed to do that even though there was great disagreement on the fragment’s meaning.

The significance of this fragment to the ICA case that Putin “aspired” for candidate Trump to win cannot be overstated. The major “high confidence” judgment of the ICA rests on one opinion about a text fragment with uncertain meaning, that may be a garble, and for which it is not clear how it was obtained. This text-which would not have been published without DCIA’s orders to do so—is cited using only one interpretation of its meaning and without considering alternative interpretations.

The HPSCI gives some examples of alternative interpretations for “whose victory Putin was counting on.” Since the information was acquired in July 2016, it could have meant Putin “expected” a Trump victory at the upcoming Republican National Convention. The HPSCI notes that the convention’s outcome “was still uncertain to do active efforts to deny Trump a majority of convention delegates. This was a headline issue for the US political media at the time, though many pundits nonetheless expected — or ‘counted on’ — a Trump victory.”

Keep reading

MSNBC Contributor Goes Full Drama Queen Over Colbert Cancelation: ‘Really Scary’

People on the left truly seem to live in an alternate universe. During a recent segment on MSNBC, contributor Molly Jong-Fast reacted to the Colbert cancelation by saying that it’s ‘really scary.’

It’s scary that a TV show got canceled? That happens all the time. In this case, the show in question was losing tens of millions of dollars a year.

She actually goes on and compares this situation to the McCarthy anti-communism hearings. This isn’t even remotely similar to that but she takes herself and her words so seriously.

“And even if it’s not quid pro quo, the idea of self-censorship. And I talk about my grandfather, Howard Fast, who was jailed by McCarthy during The House UN-American Activities, that that our government has done this before, that history is very much filled with moments like this.”

Keep reading

Trump Derangement Syndrome Isn’t Just a Pejorative Term Anymore

A pair of Republican representatives is pushing Congress to address one of the most serious domestic issues of our time. What started out as a joke – a slur, of sorts – has become a very real public mental health crisis. Since late 2016, Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) has spread as swiftly as COVID-19 and could, for most of the infected, be more debilitating. And it’s no longer just a humorous dig at leftists – especially after two attempts on President Donald Trump’s life. Back in May, Reps. Warren Davidson (R-OH) and Barry Moore (R-AL) released statements on the introduction of the Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act of 2025. This was not an epic prank. The congressmen want the National Institute of Mental Health (NIH) to study the disorder.

The late Charles Krauthammer, a political writer and pundit but a psychiatrist by training, coined the term “Bush derangement syndrome” in 2003. Leftists certainly displayed a visceral hatred of then-President George W. Bush, though it did not push them to adopt extreme and often irrational positions, as Trump Derangement Syndrome does.

Diagnosing Trump Derangement Syndrome

Anti-Trump journalist Fareed Zakaria once described TDS as “hatred of President Trump so intense that it impairs people’s judgment.” He wasn’t wrong. Personality disorders – what some clinical psychologists would collectively call sociopathy – affect the way the afflicted view themselves, their fellow human beings, and everyone’s place in the world. Emotions are governed by these disorders.

Keep reading

Tulsi Fires Back at Barack Obama, Says She Will be Releasing More Trump-Russia Hoax Docs Tomorrow to Refute Obama’s Statement

ODNI Tulsi Gabbard fired back at Barack Obama on Tuesday afternoon after the former president released a rare statement in response to Trump’s assertion Obama was the ringleader of the Russia hoax.

The office of former President Barack Obama responded to Trump’s assertion that Barack Obama was the “ringleader” of the Russia collusion hoax.

According to a declassified presidential briefing from December 2016, Barack Obama knew the Trump-Russia collusion narrative was a hoax.

Barack Obama knew it was a hoax and he was personally involved in manufacturing and politicizing the intelligence to create the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

On Tuesday President Trump said Obama is guilty of treason.

“Barack Hussein Obama is the ringleader. Hillary Clinton was right there with him and so was Sleepy Joe Biden… and so were the rest of them. Comey, Clapper, the whole group,” Trump said on Tuesday during remarks to reporters in the Oval Office.

“This was treason…they tried to steal the election…” Trump said.

Keep reading

CBS Is About to Have a Big, Expensive Stephen Colbert Problem — and Howard Stern Is the Precedent

There’s precedent for this: Twenty years ago this year, Howard Stern left terrestrial radio, opting for the Sirius Satellite (later Sirius XM) moneybag. Twenty years later, Howard Stern has gone from an A-list superstar to a has-been; the natural consequence of hiding behind a paywall for so long.

Without the feeder system of terrestrial radio to onboard new fans, eventually, his older fans lost interest and left, and nobody new took their place. And now Howard Stern — a man whose audience was once 20 million strong — has become a complete and total nobody.

Consider: Stern’s 1993 “Private Parts” book sold over 1.1 million copies. It was the fastest-selling title in Simon & Schuster history.

A few decades later, he released the book “Howard Stern Comes Again” (2019) with the exact same publisher, Simon & Schuster. While accurate book stats are tricky to track, in one listing, Stern’s 2019 book was credited with just 265,295 sales, finishing about 2,500 units behind Mark Levin’s seventh-ranked book title, “Unfreedom of the Press.” (There were even anecdotal reports of Stern’s book being sold at the dollar store, the tragic fate of so many over-published and under-demanded book titles.) Stern’s audience is a pitiful sliver of what it once was.

And eventually, that’ll be Stephen Colbert’s fate, too. But don’t focus on that yet: The important part is what happened after Stern announced he’d be leaving terrestrial radio (Oct. 6, 2004) but before he actually left on Dec. 16, 2005.

Stern spent much of his final months on terrestrial radio hyping up how awesome his new satellite radio show was gonna be (often by throwing shade at traditional radio). It led to a 43-page CBS lawsuit for “[misappropriating] millions of dollars’ worth of CBS Radio air time for his own financial benefit.” (The lawsuit was later settled, with Sirius paying CBS Radio a few million bucks, while also receiving rights to rebroadcast Stern’s old radio tapes.)

In retrospect, nobody at CBS should’ve been surprised: Of course Stern was gonna hype up his move to satellite! His new financial model depended on it! (Indeed, Stern later sued Sirius XM — and lost — when he demanded a payment of $300 million for the new subscribers gained via the Sirius-XM merger.)

Here we are, twenty years later, and CBS is in the same exact situation as before.

Keep reading